Articles

District Court of Rotterdam reduced fines imposed by the ACM for "cover pricing" in tender procedures

District Court of Rotterdam reduced fines imposed by the ACM for "cover pricing" in tender procedures

District Court of Rotterdam reduced fines imposed by the ACM for "cover pricing" in tender procedures

05.01.2016 NL law

On 26 November 2015, the District Court of Rotterdam ("District Court") reduced the fines imposed by the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets ("ACM") on two undertakings which infringed the cartel prohibition through "cover pricing" in several tender procedures for demolition contracts.

Cover pricing, a form of bid-rigging, occurs when one or more invited bidders in a tender procedure have no intention of winning but want to stay in favour with those involved in arranging contracts. Not submitting a (realistic) bid would entail the risk of not being considered for future tenders. In these instances, an undertaking asks a competitor for the value of its bid and subsequently submits a credible but higher bid.

In 2012 and 2013, the ACM rendered several decisions in which it concluded that these exchanges of commercially sensitive information gave rise to a concerted practice having as its object the restriction of competition, thus resulting in a breach of Article 6 of the Dutch Competition Act ("DCA"). According to the ACM, the undertakings created a misleading impression of a competitive bidding process. It imposed fines on a number of undertakings, varying from EUR 2,000 to EUR 69,000.

On appeal, the District Court confirmed that the exchange of commercially sensitive information through cover pricing restricts competition by object under Article 6 DCA. The argument that the concerted practice of cover pricing pursued the legitimate objective of remaining on tender lists was rejected. Furthermore, the parties argued that competition was not distorted because the given "cover price" was clearly non-competitive. The District Court also rejected this argument and stated that the undertakings distorted competition by not submitting prices independently from each other.

The District Court agreed with the ACM that cover pricing constitutes a "very serious" infringement. However, with regard to the applied gravity factor, it decided that the ACM inadequately expressed the difference in severity between "bid rigging" and "cover pricing". Cover pricing is to be regarded as less serious than bid-rigging, which eliminates competition among tender participants. The District Court therefore reduced the "gravity factor" from 1.75 to 1.5 and lowered the fines accordingly.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of January 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Not so fast – General Court clarifies merger control test

Short Reads - There is no magical number when it comes to “4-to-3” telecom mergers. On 28 May 2020, the EU’s General Court (“Court”) handed down a landmark judgment annulling a 2016 decision of the European Commission (“Commission”) blocking the merger between O2 UK and Three. The judgment fine-tunes the Commission’s application of the “significant impediment to effective competition” test for horizontal mergers and raises the bar for proving the removal of an “important competitive force” as a result of the merger.  

Read more